Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research

Volume 2, Issue 7, 2015, pp. 203-213

Available online at www.jallr.ir
ISSN: 2376-760X

Gender Differences in the Use of Intensifiers

Narges Sardabi *
English Department, Ershad Damavand University, Tehran, Iran

Akbar Afghari
English Department, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan Branch (Khorasgan), Isfahan, Iran

Abstract
The ways men and women use language have always attracted a great deal of attention. In
spite of several theories, a consistent image of gender variations in language has not been
projected by the empirical enquiries yet. This study intends to examine the use of
intensifiers in the speech of Iranian male and female high school and university students. To
conduct the study, Lakoff’s (1975) ideas about linguistic differences between males and
females were taken into account. To this end, four groups of students were interviewed:
female university students, female high school students, male university students and male
high school students. Then 1224 sentences containing intensifiers were extracted to work
on as data. For ease of analysis the intensifiers were classified into six categories which
comprise five major intensifiers, i.e., xeili, aslan, vagean, hatman, faghat, and a miscellaneous
group entitled “others”. The results indicated that females used more intensifiers compared
to males. This fact is even more significant in the speech of high school female students.
The findings of the study confirmed Lakoff’s opinion concerning gender-bound language.
Keywords: male/female speech, intensifiers, sociolinguistics, gender differences

INTRODUCTION

A plethora of research on the existence and nature of differences between men and
women has been carried out in the last few decades. One of the interesting areas within
the remit of sociolinguistics has been the amount of variation on the part of men and
women when they use language. One reason for the popularity of this subject is the fact
that language is a social phenomenon and it provides an understanding of the way men
and women approach their separate social worlds. A large body of research in this area
suggests that men tend to use language more for conveying information which is
considered as an instrumental purpose while women tend to use language for social
purposes; that is for women verbal communication is the end itself (Herring, 1993;
Brownlow, Rosamon, & Parker, 2003; Colley et al., 2004).

* Correspondence: Narges Sardabi, Email: n_sardabi@yahoo.com

© 2015 Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research
Gender Differences in the Use of Intensifiers 204

Connection between language forms and the social roles attached to men and women
who use them is one of the key issues which have attracted the attention of many
sociolinguists in recent years. Baron (1986) has noted that language is used as one of
the means of distinguishing gender differences in almost all societies; as such, many
researchers have described women’s speech as being different from the speech of men.

Lakoff (1973) believes that color words like beige, lavender and adjectives like adorable,
charming are more frequently used by women than men. Wardhaugh (1993) also claims
that women apply their own vocabulary for creating a particular effect; they use words
like such, so good, lovely, etc. The impact of one’s status on their speech style has also
been investigated by researchers. Carli (1990) maintains that speech style perceptions
of men and women can be result of different norms they have been entitled to. For
example, low-status people, including women, which are identified as powerless speech
style generally employ hesitations (well. uh), intensifiers (e.g., so, very), hedges (I think,
kinda) more than men do. They resort to these linguistic devises to ensure that their
social position is secure (Erickson, Lind, Johnson, and O'Barr, 1978). Additionally,
intensifiers have been found to be frequently used by women while hedges are a feature
of men’s speech (Carli, 1990).

Other studies have examined gender variations through the actual words men and
women use. Their findings suggest that women use more intensive adverbs, more
connectors such as but, and more modal auxiliary verbs like could that place question
marks over a statement (McMillan et al., 1977; Biber, Conrad, & Reppen, 1998; Mulac et
al., 2001; Mehl & Pennebaker, 2003). On the other hand, men have been reported to use
longer words, use more articles, swear more, and use more references to location (
Gleser, Gottschalk, & John, 1959; Mulac & Lundell, 1986; Mehl & Pennebaker, 2003).

In spite of the existence of a rather common stereotype, another area in which findings
are not consistent is emotion words. A number of studies have found that women are
better at expressing emotion than do men (Mulac et al., 1990; Thomson & Murachver,
2001). However, in a study of managers who provided criticism in a role play, Mulac et
al. (2000) found quite the opposite. Mehl and Pennebaker (2003) suggested
reconciliation, that is women used more references to positive emotion, whereas men
referred more to anger, a finding that is completely in line with gender stereotypes.

In coming up with a solid explanation for gender variation in speech form, Milroy
(1997) maintains that, considering the overall direction of current sociolinguistics, a
substantial explanation for linguistic variations of the two sexes is difficult. Similarly,
Mulac & Bradac (1995) suggest that the intricate relationship between language, power
and gender has not yet been thoroughly understood.

Trudgill’s (1974) major concern was to show that community prestige norms were the
main driving force in women's linguistic behavior while the same could not be said for
men. He believed that women were very conservative, whereas men were leading in
many situations in which change was in progress. In addition, women in his study had a
tendency to over-report their use of prestige forms while men did the opposite. He came
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(7) 205

to the conclusion that men and women react to opposed sets of norms: women respond
to overt, standard language prestige norms while men respond to covert, vernacular
prestige norms. Overt prestige is associated with refined qualities, and its standard
language, whereas covert prestige is associated with masculine, 'rough and tough'
qualities.

Not all sociolinguists agree in providing explanations of different forms employed by

both genders. For instance, Lesley Milroy (1997) argues that taking various
explanations of linguistic sex-marking based on prestige norms into consideration is
very difficult. She asserts that women resort to language as a means of marking their
status because the opportunities they could take to do so by occupation are not enough.
In contrast, Trudgill (1974) maintained that women have a tendency for overt prestige
because they feel powerless in society. He suggested that since society does not provide
women with opportunities to show their status or power through advancing in the
marketplace, they resort to their symbolic resources, including their language, to
enhance their social status (Eckert, 1989).

In contrast, Rubin and Nelson (1983) provide a strong challenge to the hypothesis that
language style is based on social power or male dominance. Rubin and Nelson examined
the use of 'powerless' language features controlling for a variety of dimensions such as
social class, ability, communication apprehension, rigidity and question type. The study
involved a sample of 40 tenth grade students asked to take part in a simulated interview
for a job in a fast food restaurant. From examination of linguistic features, Rubin and
Nelson (1983) discovered that neither gender nor socio-economic status had a large
impact on language differences. These researchers explained that when all dimensions
are controlled for, the only influential variables found were ability and whether open
and closed questions were used during the interview. They concluded that more open
questions may allow for a better examination of language features in interaction.

In the same vein, Erickson, Lind, Johnson, and O'Barr (1978) maintained that speech
style is associated with social power and status. People with low status in society tend
to use a powerless speech style accompanied with hesitations ("uh," "well"), hedges ("I
think," "kinda"), intensifiers ("so," "very"), question forms (use of rising, question
intonation in declarative form), polite forms, and gestures. On the other hand, High-
status people seldom employ these powerless forms and use what Erickson et al. called
the “powerful style”.

Apart from all universal differences between men and women speech, this difference in
the case of Iranian women seem more significant due to the limitations and inhibitions
that women in our country encounter. In addition to this possibly universal fact that
society does not allow women to show their power or position in the market, and they
resort to their language for a higher status, Iranian women are faced with another social
limitation, that is the dress code they have to follow which might put them in a more
limited and inferior position and might deprive them of the chance to establish their
social status.
Gender Differences in the Use of Intensifiers 206

Furthermore, until recently the majority of men in Iran used to consider women as
second rate citizens. It seems, therefore, that the only symbolic resource available to
Iranian women to display their social status is their language. Some of the privileges
that men could have enjoyed, women could not, one of which is freedom of the style of
speaking with which they feel more comfortable.

Consequently, we intend to launch a study to investigate the use of intensifiers in the

speech of Iranian male and female students. However, we will first introduce a brief
description of intensifiers.

Intensifiers

Wikipedia defines intensifiers as a “linguistic term that makes no contribution to the

propositional meaning of a clause but serves to enhance and give additional emotional
context to the word it modifies”. Intensifiers increase the effect of a verb by using an
adverb that strengthens the emotional content of the word. Intensifiers are used to
delicately suggest to the audience how they should feel. Adverbs could also be used to
reduce the emotional content of a verb. Some examples of intensifiers are:

 That is very interesting. (basic intensifier)

 That is very, very interesting. (repetition to increase effect)
 That is extremely interesting. (suggests extreme response)
 That is amazingly interesting. (suggests being amazed)
 That is scarily interesting. (suggests being scared)
 That is quite interesting. (reducing intensity)
 That is a bit interesting. (reducing intensity)

The basic intensifier is 'very' and can be used with many verbs. Other intensifiers often
have the quite the same meaning as 'very' but have other forms. A few examples of
intensifiers are: very, extremely, really, fantastically, remarkably, etc.

Intensifiers usually imply to the audience how they should feel. When the audience
hears the emotion named in the adverb, he/she automatically begins to feel that way.
Since adverbs are not the part of a sentence which would require too much noticing, the
audience does not realize the suggestions consciously (Stock, 2010).

An interesting pattern of intensification could also be employed. In this pattern negative

words are utilizes to intensify the effect of positive verbs. For example words like
terribly, insanely, awfully, dreadfully, fearfully:

 She is dreadfully beautiful.

 What an insanely good idea!

Since many strong emotions are negative, using them in a positive context would
transfer that intensity of emotion to the positive words. It also adds to the emotional
effect of the word by combining negative and positive words (Huddleston & Pullum,
2002).
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(7) 207

METHOD

Participants

To carry out the investigation semi-structured interviews were conducted with four
groups of students:

 female university students

 female high school students
 male university students
 male high school students

Four participants were interviewed from each group which came to a total number of
16. It should be noted that in some of the interviews, two participants were interviewed
simultaneously. All the participants were living in the sixth district of Tehran. High
school students were all going to the schools located in this district; as for university
students, they were attending different universities throughout Tehran. Almost all the
participants belonged to the same socioeconomic status, i.e. middle class.

Context of the Interviews

To have a clear and comprehensive picture of the environment in which participants

lived, statistical information was obtained from the district's municipality located in
Yusef Abad Street. Here is a summary of the official data gathered about the sixth
district of Tehran:

The district which has been chosen for the purpose of this study has its own unique
characteristics just like any other district. It is located in the center of the capital
neighboring with six other districts. It is a densely packed district with a multitude of
private and state organizations including ten ministries, some colleges, hospitals, hotels,
sports centers, parks and embassies. Another unique feature of this district is the
presence of six churches which indicates that the number of non-Muslims is high in that
area. In fact this district is populated by a large group of Armenians and Christians. For
detailed information about the district refer to the following table:

Table 1. Information about the sixth district of Tehran

Population 220,000
Area 21.2 square km
Neighborhood 18
Park 30
Church 6
Ministry 10
Theater 8
Embassy 21
Museum 8
Library 3
Mosque 22
House of Culture 2
Gender Differences in the Use of Intensifiers 208

Cinema 13
Gallery 13
College 10
Procedure

To collect the relevant data, 16 participants were randomly selected and interviewed.
Before the interviews, they were asked if the interviews could be recorded and
fortunately all agreed. The interviewers did their best to conduct real and naturalistic
interviews to eliminate the effect of formality of interview. Each interview lasted for
about 45 minutes. While the interviews were transcribed, the sentences containing the
intensifiers were extracted to work on as data. Finally, 1224 sentences containing
intensifiers were extracted.

For the ease of analysis the intensifiers were classified into six categories which
comprise five major intensifiers, i.e., xeili (very, much), aslan (never, not), vaghean
(really), hatman (certainly), faghat (only), and a miscellaneous group entitled “others”.
Then the frequency of occurrence of each intensifier was calculated in the speech of
each participant.

Data Analysis

The data were coded for the type of intensifier used by participants and gender as a
social factor. Afterwards, they were analyzed using the SPSS software. Frequency counts
were used to show the frequency of ‘intensifiers’ as found in the Persian utterances
produced by males and females. Also, the researchers used percentage figures to show
the distribution of each linguistic item within and between groups.

RESULTS

Results of analysis of data will be presented in two main parts. In the first part, the
overall distribution of intensifiers is discussed. As can be seen, table 1 represents the
overall distribution of the six categories of the intensifiers in our sample.

Table 2. The distribution of the intensifiers

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

xeili(very, much) 412 33.7 33.7
33.7
aslan(never, not) 155 12.7 12.7
46.6
hatman(certainly) 110 9.0 9.0
55.3
vaghean(really) 247 20.2 20.2
75.5
faghat(only) 76 6.2 6.2
81.7
others 224 18.3 18.3
100.0
total 1224 100.0 100.0

As shown, among the several intensifiers in Persian language, ' xeili' (meaning very) is
used more than the others (33.7%). ‘vaghean’ (really) is the next most frequently used
intensifier with 12.7 percentage of use, and ‘faghat’ (only) has the least frequency
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(7) 209

among all tokens of intensifiers; that is only 6.2 percent of the intensifiers used by both
males and females belonged to faghat.

In the second part of our analysis we will see how women and men behave in this
respect. Their differences are shown in figure 1.

350

300

250

200
Female
150 Male

100

50

0
Xeili Aslan Hatman Vaghean Faghat Other

Figure 1. The frequency of occurrence of intensifiers in the speech of male and female
students

As shown some intensifiers like ‘xeili' and 'vaghean’ are utilized by women much more
than men, perhaps to indicate their certainty or control over the situation. The data
presented in figure 1 show a significant difference between intensifier usages in Persian
male/female speech. As it is obvious in this chart, in all categories females overused the
intensifiers. “Xeili” is the most frequent intensifier employed by the two groups, while
“faghat” was proved to be the least frequent one.

Table 3. The frequency and the percentage of the intensifiers employed by male and
female students

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Female 892 72.9 72.9 72.9
Male 322 27.1 27.1 100.0
Total 1224 100.0 100.0

Frequency counts, however, indicate that out of 1224 sentences containing intensifiers
extracted from our interviews 892 sentences (72.9 %) were used by females while only
332 sentences (27.1 %) were found in the speech of male participants. In other words,
women utilized intensifiers about twice as much as men, which is a highly significant
figure.
Gender Differences in the Use of Intensifiers 210

Considering the possible effects of our second variable i.e. the educational background
of the subjects on the use of intensifier, based on figure 2 we came to this conclusion
that this variable did not have a significant influence.

250

200

150
University
High school
100

50

0
Xeili Aslan Hatman Vaghean Faghat Other

Figure 2. The distribution of the intensifiers according to educational background of the

subjects

But it is worthwhile to mention that the frequencies of occurrence of intensifiers in all

categories were higher in the speech of high school students except “hatman”. This
intensifier was more popular among university students. Surprisingly our
miscellaneous category which we entitled as “others” yielded the same number of
intensifiers in both groups. Table 3 statistically confirms our findings by giving the
percentage of the intensifiers in two educational groups.

Table 4. The percentage of the intensifiers in two educational groups

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

University 581 47.5 47.5 47.5
High school 643 52.5 52.5 100.0
Total 1224 100.0 100.0

In sum, the results of this study indicate that as it was expected females employed more
intensifiers in their utterances compared to males. This fact is even more significant in
the speech of high school female students.

DISCUSSION

Lakoff (1973) has noted that women are systematically denied access to power, on the
grounds that they are not able to hold it, as demonstrated by linguistic and other
aspects of their behavior. The problem for her is, therefore not a linguistic but a cultural
one and the distinction between male/female language seems to be a symptom of a
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(7) 211

problem in our culture. It is also claimed that in societies in which the roles of men and
women are most clearly differentiated, the greatest linguistic differences may appear
(Wardhaugh, 1993).

Traditionally, Iranian women have been denied access to power at least in the last
century and except for a few cases (some parliamentary positions and a couple of
cabinet memberships), they have never had access to political power. Between 1973
and 1980, for instance, only 13.6% of the university faculty members were women and
this percentage has increased by only 6% since then. In addition, the establishment of a
new system in 1979 and the social changes that followed have presumably put Iranian
women in a more inferior social status, making them express their social position
neither by their earning power (a universal problem (Trudgill, 1974)), nor by how they
appear in public, because of the Islamic dress code. Therefore, we had predicted that
linguistic devises should be among the only means immediately available to Iranian
women to express their social status. The results of this study confirmed our prediction
and Lakoff's observation of women's talk. It seems that Iranian women participated in
the interviews feel that their social status is not secure enough, and they therefore,
appeal to linguistic means to signal it.

As for a linguistic preference in the speech of university and high school students, no
significant difference was observed. In fact, high school students' use of intensifiers was
only slightly more than the university students. This might suggest that since their teens
both girls and boys start to learn the social roles they are expected to fulfill in the
society and the linguistic devices necessary for signaling those roles.

However when it comes to generalizing the findings of the study, it is very difficult to
decide, since limitations the researcher had when conducting the study would prevent
us from generalizing the results to every communication environment in the society.

CONCLUSION

By using “men as the norm and women as a deviation” criteria, many researchers have
explained their results in order to prove how women’s language use is inferior to or
different from men’s (Lakoff, 1973; Cameron, 1992). In this study a highly significant
difference was observed in the utterances of the participants in favor of females. This
fact was even more noticeable in the speech of high-school female students.

In addition to this worldwide issue that society does not allow women to enhance their
power or status through action in the marketplace, and they are thrown upon their
language to enhance their social position, Iranian women are confronted with another
social restriction, namely some kind of dress code which apparently puts them in a
more inferior social status and deprives them of using their appearance to establish
their social status. It seems, therefore, that the only symbolic resource available to
Iranian women to display their social status is their language. Consequently, as low-
status persons they should appeal to linguistic devises such as intensifiers to secure and
signal their position in society.
Gender Differences in the Use of Intensifiers 212

Due to some limitation of this study it would be very difficult to generalize the findings
of this study to the population. Firstly, some of the interviewees, especially among male
participants, were more reticent than others and it was rather difficult to get them
engaged in the process of interviews. Secondly, as mentioned before, in a few interviews
two subjects were participating simultaneously. Although this technique was very
effective in gathering the data in a more naturalistic situation, in some cases it was a
little bit detrimental since when one participant was answering a question the other one
was just listening and just expressed his/her “agreement”. Therefore it resulted in a
“cut-back” effect on the number of intensifiers.

Another drawback of the study is related to the length of interviews. Some of the
interviews lasted longer because the participants showed greater eagerness to talk
more about the certain topics that had been chosen for the purpose of the study. To
modify the influence of this problem we decided to transcribe almost equal portion of
interviews and as a result a few topics was dropped from them which might have lent
themselves more to the utilization of intensifiers.

The findings of this study have important implications for understanding the power of
society on forming the identities of both genders which might lead to different language
choices by men and women. The findings also facilitate self-awareness of both males
and females when using various language forms to communicate their meaning. The
issues raised in this study provide a basis for future research. For example, the sample
in this study was limited to one district in Tehran. Future research might apply a similar
methodology to a wider sample to determine whether gender differences are significant
at that level too.

REFERENCES

Baron, D. (1986). Grammar and Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language
structure and use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Brownlow, S., Rosamon, J. A., & Parker, J. A. (2003). Gender-linked linguistic behavior in
television interviews. Sex Roles, 49, 121–132.
Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism & Linguistic Theory. (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.
Carli, L.L. (1990). Gender, Language, and Influence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 941-951.
Colley, A., Todd, Z., Bland, M., Holmes, M., Khanom, M., & Pike, H. (2004). Style and
content in emails and letters to male and female friends. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 23, 369–378.
Eckert, P. (1989). The Whole Woman: Sex and Gender Differences in Variation.
Language Variation and Change, 1, 1: 245-67.
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2015, 2(7) 213

Erickson, B., Lind, A.E., Johnson, B.C., & O'Barr, W.M. (1978). Speech Style and
Impression Formation in a Court Setting: The Effects of "Powerful" and
"powerless" Speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14: 266_279.
Gleser,G. C., Gottschalk, L. A.,&John,W. (1959). The relationship of sex and intelligence to
choice of words: A normative study of verbal behavior. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 15, 183–191.
Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication.
Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(2). Retrieved October 3, 2014, from
http://www.cios.org/getfile/ HERRING_V3N293
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of English. Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-23.
Lakoff , R. (1975). Language and women's place. New York: Harper and Row.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and women’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45-80.
McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Gale, W. S. (1977).Women’s language:
Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivity and emotionality? Sex Roles, 3, 545–559.
Mehl, M. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2003). The sounds of social life: A psychometric
analysis of students’ daily social environments and natural conversations. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 84, 857–870.
Milroy, L. (1997). Observing and Analyzing Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mulac, A., & Bradac, J. (1995). Women's Style in Problem-solving Interactions:
Powerless or simply Feminine? In P.J. Kalbfleish & M.J. Cody (Eds.). Gender, Power,
and Communication in Human Relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum: 83-104.
Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1986). Linguistic contributors to the gender-linked language
effect. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 5, 81–101.
Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support for the gender-as-culture
hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Human
Communication Research, 27, 121–152.
Mulac, A., Seibold, D. R., & Farris, J. L. (2000). Female and male managers’ and
professionals’ criticism giving: Differences in language use and effects. Journal of
Language & Social Psychology, 19(4), 389–415.
Mulac, A., Studley, L. B., & Blau, S. (1990). The gender-linked effect in primary and
secondary students’ impromptu essays. Sex Roles, 23, 439–469.
Rubin, D. L., & Nelson, M. W. (1983). Multiple determinants of a stigmatized speech
style: Women's language, powerless language, or everyone's language? Language
and Speech, 26(3), 273-290.
Stock, K. (2010). How Can You Tell If A CEO Is Lying? Wall Street Journal.
Thomson, R., & Murachver, T. (2001). Predicting gender from electronic discourse.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 193–208.
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wardhaugh, R. (1993). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.